Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:35:06 +0300 From: Daniel Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> To: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> Cc: FreeBSD stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ix(intel) vs mlxen(mellanox) 10Gb performance Message-ID: <197995E2-0C11-43A2-AB30-FBB0FB8CE2C5@cs.huji.ac.il> In-Reply-To: <20150817094145.GB3158@zxy.spb.ru> References: <1D52028A-B39F-4F9B-BD38-CB1D73BF5D56@cs.huji.ac.il> <20150817094145.GB3158@zxy.spb.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Aug 17, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> = wrote: >=20 > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:27:41AM +0300, Daniel Braniss wrote: >=20 >> hi, >> I have a host (Dell R730) with both cards, connected to an = HP8200 switch at 10Gb. >> when writing to the same storage (netapp) this is what I get: >> ix0: ~130MGB/s >> mlxen0 ~330MGB/s >> this is via nfs/tcpv3 >>=20 >> I can get similar (bad) performance with the mellanox if I = increase the file size >> to 512MGB. >=20 > Look like mellanox have internal beffer for caching and do ACK = acclerating. what ever they are doing, it=E2=80=99s impressive :-) >=20 >> so at face value, it seems the mlxen does a better use of = resources than the intel. >> Any ideas how to improve ix/intel's performance? >=20 > Are you sure about netapp performance? yes, and why should it act differently if the request is coming from the = same host? in any case the numbers are quiet consistent since I have measured it from several = hosts, and at different times. danny
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?197995E2-0C11-43A2-AB30-FBB0FB8CE2C5>